Writing about random topics

Becoming human, part 2

The idea that humanity evolved from the same common ancestors as apes (technically, we all evolved from common ancestors even further back than that) is not well accepted today in many conservative Christian circles. Within that camp, there are a couple of positions that attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with the creation account that is told in the book of Genesis:

The theory of evolution is totally incorrect. All of the evidence that support human evolution is either fabricated or misinterpreted, intentionally or not.

The problem with this position is that it is scientifically untenable. The vast mountain of evidence is that the earth is very old and that we evolved. Science is not a random process, if there is anything that we can be sure about, it is that the earth is old and that we evolved. It is the theory of evolution in the sense that there is a theory of relativity.

We trust science for electricity, physics, chemistry, and biology. It is to be trusted in geology and paleontology, also.

The theory of evolution is correct and can be harmonized with the Genesis account. One way this is done is by stretching the days in Genesis. Each “day” is really a period of time. When God creates the heavens and earth on the first day (i.e., the earth and the sky? Hard to say that it would be the stars since the earth is a star and was created on day four), that really took thousands or millions of years until day two when he made the land between the waters below and above. Each day may be of varying length.

Another position is the gap theory wherein there is an undisclosed period of time between Genesis 1:1 (when the earth was created) and Genesis 1:2 (when light was created) and in this period of time, evolution of the earth’s land masses was taking place and this process took billions of years.

The problem with either of these two positions is that it forces the reader to interpret the passages in unnatural ways. The passage reads that God created on six days, there was evening and then there was morning. Taken that way, there’s no room for long spaces of time nor large gaps. It’s obvious that the writer means them to be sequential and other writers assumed the same thing (Israelites work six days because God worked six days). Furthermore, the order of creation contradicts what we know from science (sun on day 4 vs earth on day 1 is backwards, creating light before creating the sun).

This doesn’t work either.

What do we do? The key is to stop interpreting the story of Genesis as a literal history. It is not a timeline of events. It is the Israelites way of telling the reader that God intentionally created the earth.

Other cultures at the time had their own creation myths. One was that the ancient gods were at war with one another and in their cosmic battles, accidentally created the earth. Others postulated that the earth was supported by some sort of large creature. By contrast, the Jewish creation story states that created the earth deliberately, not accidentally. It also states that God created order out of chaos, not chaos out of order like the other gods. Thus, we should better understand that the creation story makes a theological point, not that it is scientifically accurate because it is not scientifically accurate.

That’s the way to harmonize science and religion.

Of course, reconciling science and religion becomes a bit more difficult later on in the New Testament. Sometimes when pastors answer the question “Why is there so much evil in the world?” they reply that it wasn’t originally this way. The world was originally created very good and fell into decay. Furthermore, quote Paul in Romans 8:19-21:

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I don’t know about you but I find that passage really hard to read. The way most Christian speakers or writers quote it, they are saying that the creation was originally good. Because of humans, it became a broken world and God did not intend for it to be this way. It was not his original plan. But fear not! God will restore it to its rightful place, the way it was in the beginning.

The problem with this interpretation – claiming that the earth was originally good – is definitely at odds with science. We know from natural history that death was a part of the earth long before man ever appeared. From the time the first animals appear several hundred million years ago, animals were living and dying, living and dying. Disease occurred. Mass extinction events wiped out 75% of the species on earth and this has occurred multiple times in our planet’s history. To say that the earth was created good is not reflective of reality because what the earth is like now is representative of its beginnings.

Ironically enough, in the book of Job, God appears to answer all of Job’s complaints and never answers it. He describes all of the work of his creation and leaves humanity out of it. He doesn’t say that life is fair or that everyone will be repaid. He just says that He does his thing and that’s all there is to it. It’s not a particularly reassuring speech but it definitely dovetails better with what we know about the history of the earth than saying it was originally good.

How do we resolve this problem?

I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Because I can’t. But am I worried? Not particularly, because the church has been around a long time and while they have been slow to respond to technological innovation, they get around to it eventually. They will no doubt do the same with this.